Related

Barack Obama won the White House with a firm promise to put an end to what critics called the Bush Administration's use of torture on terror suspects. But as the President-elect prepares to take office, his team is quickly learning that even on such a seemingly black-and-white issue, effecting change in Washington is never as simple as it sounds on the campaign trail.

That military manual specifically bars the Army from using
techniques that were approved in recent years by President Bush and his
deputies, including waterboarding, intimidation by military dogs, the
hooding of detainees and sexual humiliation. The manual approves 16 other
interrogation techniques, focused mainly on non-coercive psychological
manipulation.

For much of the past year, most Democratic lawmakers have supported Obama's
plan. But with Obama's election, two key Democrats on the Senate
Intelligence Committee have begun to entertain the possibility of another
solution: Developing a new government-wide policy different from the field
manual to regulate interrogation techniques, a plan that appears to be
drawing support within the intelligence community but some concern from human rights groups.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is set to chair the Senate
Intelligence Committee, said this week that while she still supports using
the Army Field Manual for the entire government, she was willing to consider
other options. "I recognize there are other views, and I am willing to work
with the new Administration to consider them," she said in a statement. She
added that she expects "a single, clear standard for interrogation across
the federal government" and that the standard would have to comply with "all
laws and treaties." Feinstein says she plans to reintroduce her bill to require a government-wide use of the field manual early next year. To read more on the issue, click here.

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, another Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, told
the New York Times this week that he was open to discussing CIA techniques not
included in the Army manual, as long as they were "legal, humane and
noncoercive." "Just because the Army Field Manual is the best available
manual, doesn't mean we can't do better," explained Jennifer Hoelzer, a
spokesman for Wyden.

Under current law and policy, the CIA has a secret list of approved
interrogation techniques distinct from the Army manual. But at the same time, the agency is
prohibited by law from using techniques that are "cruel, inhuman or
degrading." In recent years, the Bush Administration has interpreted those
terms as permitting techniques like "waterboarding", an approach that is
widely considered torture, in which detainees experience simulated drowning.
The CIA has since said that it has suspended the use of this particular
technique, though earlier this year Bush vetoed a bill requiring the CIA to operate under the field manual, and Democrats lacked the votes to override. In any case the Bush legal interpretations are certain to be abolished under the Obama administration, say experts involved in these discussions.

The possibility of departing from the field manual standard comes at a
critical time. Senior members of Obama's transition staff, including future
White House counsel Greg Craig, Attorney General nominee Eric Holder and
Democratic Senate staffer Mary DeRosa, have been holding wide-ranging
meetings to gather opinions about interrogation policy. Obama does not require Congress's approval to pull back on Bush's current interrogation policies, and an executive
order reversing them could be released as early as next January.

On Wednesday, the three officials met in Craig's downtown Washington
law office with more than a dozen retired generals and admirals who advocate
abolishing any interrogation method that employs tactics that the U.S. would
not want used by an enemy on American citizens, a principle known as the
"Golden Rule." Several members of the group said they would be open to
developing a new government-wide standard, as long as it only permitted
techniques similar to those allowed in the field manual. "I think the field
manual is fine, but I understand agency jealousies," said retired Admiral John
Hutson, who is a member of the group. "What I am bound to is a single
standard, and that that standard be the golden rule."

Caroline Fredrickson, the legislative director of the ACLU, said that she and other civil liberties advocates
plan to meet with the President-elect's transition team soon. "We are very concerned about something
that would go in a different direction" from the field manual, she said.
"But I think Sen. Obama has been very clear about what direction he is going in."

Some advisers have been less clear. John Brennan, a former CIA
official who has counseled Obama on intelligence matters, said in August that the use of the
field manual was an open question. "Whether the Army Field Manual is
comprehensive enough to cover all those tactics and techniques, that's
something I think he'd look to his national security advisers for," said
Brennan in an August interview with Congressional Quarterly. Last week Brennan withdrew his name from consideration for the top job at the CIA, after an outcry of protest from Obama's
liberal supporters. Though he worked at the CIA early in the Bush Administration, Brennan has long maintained that he objected to the harshest interrogation policies pushed by the White House.

Other outside experts in interrogation law have pointed to the considerable
gap between what is permitted under the field manual and what is allowed by
a reasonable interpretation of laws and treaties. For example, the field
manual prohibits a number of psychological ploys, like "threatening to
separate parents from children" and "implying harm to the individual or his
property," which might otherwise be allowed under the law in certain
circumstances.

Benjamin Wittes, a Brookings scholar of legal standards in the war on
terror, said that new President would be wise to maintain some leeway beyond
the Army document. "The right answer here is not for the executive branch to
have zero latitude in the highest stakes interrogations," Wittes said. "And
you don't have to be Dick Cheney to believe that." In the past, members of
the intelligence community have also argued for keeping some approved
methods of interrogation classified, so as not to tip off enemies to what they might possibly face in the future.

The final outcome of the President's interrogation plan is still under
development, as is any legislative push by Democrats in Congress next year.
Both Wyden and Feinstein say they are considering new legislation to codify
the restrictions on presidential power when it comes to interrogation, an
effort that President Bush repeatedly resisted. "No one here thinks that
President Obama is going to commit any abuse of prisoners," said Hoelzer,
the Wyden spokeswoman. But she added that there was much less confidence in
the priorities of those Presidents who might follow Obama into the office.